Paul in Zimbabwe subscribes to the WHYS Daily Email and suggested this question in response to the Sudan story. There’s fury in some quarters at the ICC warrant against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. These are some of the questions you want to discuss.

– is the ICC neutral?

– will this contribute to and hinder attempts to bring peace to Darfur?
– can there be peace and justice in Sudan, or does the UN need to choose between the two?

– who exactly is going to arrest President Bashir?

– if he were arrested would he get a fair trial?

– and why President Bashir and not other African leaders accused of involvement in civilian deaths?

No court can be completely “just” or completely “neutral”. This is a parabolic equation. However the futility should never stop the quest from getting as close as possible. Transparency is a major key though.

ICC has no clout. It can’t arrest, it can’t act, it can’t execute its own ruling.
If, as OXFAM says, 600,000 people need aid in Darfur region, why risk their lives by indicting Bashir and provoking the expulsion of ten aid agencies?

The Court was shaped to deal best with dictators after they are out of office. During the time that Sout Africa chose truth and reconciliation commissions, the Chileans were waiting out Pinochet and saving documents for trials and Balthazar Garcon was pushing Europe to detain international human rights offenders misusing diplomatic passports. Sitting leaders are much harder to nail. The implications for starvation among the vulnerable hover over this moment.

I’m afraid this answer isn’t specific to the ICC, but it is in the context of international justice. A few years ago I attended a talk at UW-Milwaukee by a South African representative of the world court. During question and answer, I asked, in the context of human sufering in Iraq between the first and second Gulf Wars, whether there were any existing international laws prohibiting siege against civilian populations. I could have sworn I had heard of such laws before, so I expected a simple yes answer. But I was told instead that this was a political question.

I was not in a position to disagree at the time, but it is surely an answer which needs to be rexamined. There’s a good reason the US has three separate branches of government. Anyone who knows how the Supreme Court is really appointed, knows that such independence from politics here is merely wishful thinking. But if there is truly no independent judicial authority in the world, then it’s about time there were.

neutral how ..what about arrest warrant to bush junior for attacking iraq ..sudan like america too doesnt recognize internationalcriminalcourt and why arrest warrant to sudnese president only ..by doing so icc is exposing itself to the world body as another impotent body of unitednations with no jurisdictional or judicial powers to act upon sovereign nations ?nobody is going to arrest basher as united nations impotence is a major factor and only by deconstructing the whole united nations to suit the 21 st century needs then only this kind of arrest warrants can even take effect under international law ..
as of present this kind of arrest warrants will turn out as gimmicks for legal and international fraternity to debate and forget after their verbal gymnastics?
devadas.v
kannur
kerala

First times are always difficult and face extreme opposition by the those affected. However, there always has to be a first time, and this is the first time an arrest warrant has been issued by the ICC for a sitting leader of a nation. The Sudan atrocities are in our face now, after what I heard yesterday on the news is an estimated 300,000 deaths caused by this Sudanese regime and this Sudanese leader.

The world as a whole must learn how to prevent murderous deeds by heads of state or, failing that, displace and punish them for their crimes.

The world is moving toward an international system of justice. No system will ever be perfect nor will it ever be embraced by heads of state drunk with power but, hopefully, it will evolve into something closer to perfect. If the first step is never taken, it will not evolve.

This Sudanese tragedy is happening now and should be dealt with now and defending one murderous regime by pointing out that there are other murderous regimes is a despicable diversionary tactic that should not be allowed.

Bashir first creates the refugee problem, then “allows” international aid agencies to help them, then attempts to use those same refugees as a weapon to shield himself from justice.

The ICC might be selective in whom they prosecute(they must think they can maintain a prosecution in this case).

There are so many regimes like Bashirs around the world either you can either do nothing or
coopt and rehabilitate them(libya,syria)or
apply sanctions against the countrys politicians and civil servants(zimbabwe) or
maybe try regime change by backing rebels or
directly invade by sending in your infantry to capture their flag(Iraq Afghanistan).

Let’s see, if you steal a small amount of cash, you’re going to go jail. If you’re Madoff, you get to wear an electronic anklet and sleep in your own bed. Can someone tell be the difference between the two systems? The ICC and the US justice system? The seem to operating in the same way. The rich get off and the poor have to pay.

This arrest order for the President of Sudan is setting a precident. A good one.

I wrote on this blog shortly after Hurricane Katrina that George W. Bush should be tried for Genocide because of the way he (did not)?dealt with Hurricane Katrina. I still thnk so and I can tell by the things that are going on in the US right now with some people trying to set up a Truth Comission, that I am not the only one who wants to see testimony by Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

Politicians are accountable for their mistakes. And if you saw The Globe, a trashy supermarket weekly last week in the U.S., George W. Bush is busy being worried that he may be asked to account for his (mis)deeds.

Somebody on National Public Radio said this morning that you cannot turn the page until you have read it.
So that was that here from Dallas, Texas, where there are a .ell of a lot of people who are angry with the former President G.W. Bush and hope to see him called to account for his actions.

While the ICC may not be able to arrest Bashir, this warrant in a step in the right direction.

1. For all of you on this blog who hate George Bush: The US, under Bush and Bush himself, have condememed Sudan more than anyone else. The US was pushing for a UNSC vote to call what was going on in Sudan genocide.

2. China. Please look toward the country who is making a lot of money in Sudan and who would block UNSC votes. China is the key to turning Bashir. He will not be arrested but China has the economic power to change things there.

3. @nelson, gary, devadas.v,

Whether you agree with the US war in Iraq or not, you have to admit that Sadddam Hussein was a bad guy. He murdered thousands of his own people, Iranians, and Kuwaitis.

It does not matter if you agree with how he handled the war but do you really believe that Bush should be prosecuted for ending the reign of terror by a man who for all practical purposes was worse than Bashir

And I would like to see Mugabe in front of the ICC, A.S.A.P., too!
Mugabe is holding birthday parties and Dubya is hanging out in Hardware stores and getting ovations at Mexican restaurants. They are having too much fun.

If the ICC isn’t the right place for a trial – and a neutral venue, then I don’t know what is. I have faith in the System of Justice and even though it takes time, it is better for criminals – even those who have been Heads of State – to have their Day in Court. That is what Civilization is all about.

I used to believe in these processes however now I am totally disillusioned.
The ICC is not part of the UN but they are afflicted with the same problems, they are not neutral as they have to rely on primarily UN members for funding in addition to “voluntary contributions from governments, international organisations, individuals, corporations and other entities.” Even if they were it would make no difference, again much like the UN they issue statements or make resolutions that no one adheres to and nobody can make them.

His work is undisquised before many people, he has own view, people such as sudan those lives in africa needs strong and hard leadership, cause of their mind is living without judiciary, law. So man who can could let them live under law is president Bashir. Westerns dont understand africans culture is very different. They have been living as free lives. If anyone could change their mind to law mind all things gonna be ok

Accusations of colonialism seem to be the last bastion of Africa’s most corrupt, murderous and cowardly tin-horn tyrants. If Desmond Tutu or Kofi Annan were saying it, I’d be willing to listen carefully, but coming from Bob Mugabe or Omar al-Bashir? Pathetic!

The ICC is not completely neutral of course. And Bashir is merely the easiest person to target, but is he guilty? Absolutely. Should he be the only one? Absolute not. Politically, going after George Bush or even Robert Mugabe would be vastly more problematic. Whenever a leader engages in a war either abroad or against a rebellion, an investigation should be opened against their government. If they fight within the rules of international law, then no action should be taken. If they don’t, then let them stand trial.

In the end though, isn’t this discussion merely academic? Who is actually going to be arrested even when they are charged with these crimes? Unless there’s a coup by some pro-Western faction, Bashir is not being turned over any time soon.

Both the political noise muddying the waters and the inability to enforce arrest warrants really hamstrings the ICC.

Yeah President Bashir is a criminal and should be brought to justice like countless others, among them Olmert or Bush.

But what leave me a bad taste in the mouth is this nagging feeling I have that if Soudan was docile and would make business with west rather than China, somehow it could commit all the atrocities it wanted without being bothered the slightiest.

George Bush and Tony Blair decided to invade Iraq, a sovereign country. Clearly a case of naked agression which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the internal displacement of millions.

And then we come to Omar Al-Bashir, Atleast he did not invade anyone which makes him a thousand times better than bush and blair

There is so much ignorance about the ICC and international law in general it is frustrating. However, so many of the the people who cry colonialism or bias, are just trying to excuse violations of human rights by their favored strongmen. This includes conservatives in the United States by the way.

The ICC has judges from all over the world, the selection rotates and also requires that the persons accused are, in fact, above the law in their home countries. That there is a non-functional, or politically manipulated judicial system.

Crimes against humanity must fit into a very specific category including systemic and massive violations of human rights or the specific targeting of civilians in war. Bashir appointed the man who engineered the Janjaweed attacks, to be in charge of refugees.

It is interesting to me that anybody can support Bashir and oppose Israeli actions in Gaza or other conflicts, when Bashir has killed more muslims then Israel has. More civilians in his own country then the U.S. has anybody in Iraq militants and civilian.

How do you defend somebody who massacres Africans and Muslims? Women and children? If you hate Bush, then you must hate Bashir.

I don’t think anyone can dispute that this man is a criminal and he needs to be brought to justice, however because of the sensitive situation in Darfur the ICC should respect the decisions made by the African Union because its our troops and the innocent civilians that are in danger. All the work that the Aid organizations have made will be thrown down the drain. In my opinion this was an irresponsible decision and the ICC has put more people in danger.

I am sure that the accusation of ” genocide” will be brought into the case. He is a murderer. UN should intervene and arrest him. This teaches other presidents as him a lesson. The pitiful thing is that only after 6 years UN acted. It is too late!!!! We must remain vigilant and ask ourselves: why acting so late? There were other interests of the media etc in 2003: Iraq. We must accept that we are also to blame for the humanitarian crisis in Darfour . In the century of instant communication we have a warrant after 6 years!!!!!!!!!!!!What took so long?To gather information or to resolve other issues meantime,,,,,,,That is why this warrant is so controversial: because it came too late. Anyway better later than never…….
I thing that as we will be witnesses to new economic theory etc….it’s time to have a shift in international law which must be respected.

I must acknowledge that am the happiest person in the world today to hear that Bashir Sudanese President has been supeoneda before the ICC. This has been my wish for the last 3 years so that the people of Sudan could have fresh air.

In terms of who shoud arrest Bashir this is a test fro Obama administration to raise to the occassion and respond appropriately so that Bashir can face the international and natural law without being prejudice of the outcome. Indeed Bashir has a serious case to answer as for the African Union it is a rubber stamp organisation that should not be given any earnesty attention as the delegation has no substance and besides why are they just appearing now when infact this case started a long time.

Ladies and gentlemen, lets allow the ICC do its job in a more transparent and impartial Bashir if indeed has done nothing wrong then he will be vindicated in a normal course of the law. As for those that are busy wasting their time calling and questioning why Mugabe or Bush has not been called by ICC they have to stop issue linkages and it appears they are the same people who perpetuate these evil acts.

Lets advocate for a more procative global existence and transparency. Bravo ICC and do not put yourself in a reverse gear Bashir must go in and if there is a need to pursue Mugabe or Bush then lets use the success from this case as a fundamental legal and majority impetus.

I am a Kenyan in Czech Republic.[call me Kip from Kenya because if the Kenyan government witch-hunting].
I fully support the ICC indictment of Bashir.It has been a long painful time for the people of Darfur.I can’t wait for him to sit and answer those questions.However,i would like to see the west also practice fair justice.The problems is Africa are caused collectively by the world because of things like oil,diamonds and gold.These dictators who think they are indispensable are marauding around Africa sometimes with support of the West.The UN last week listed very serious human rights abuse “charges” against the government of Kibaki in Kenya. I think the ICC should extent its tentacles.am sure all these people like Kibaki,Mugabe,bashir and Joseph Kony can fit into those cells

As for the person of Bashir it would seem to me that no truthfull human being should hesitate to issue the warrant and pursue his arrest.
As for the ICC: it seems to me that the majority of the world supports the powers embodied in it, whereas the remarks about the absence of power has not lead to the entrance of for instance USA, Russia and the (so-called)People´s Republic of China. The latter, driven by its economical influence in Sudan and BY nothing else, voted against the issue of the warrant.
And the Union of Africa Nations? Get your act together and live up to your Strategic Plan as published in Addis Abeba in May 2004.

ICC is very neutral in the issuance of arrest warrant to President Omar Al-Bashir.
This will bring durable peace,democracy,human right and rule of law in Sudan particularly Dafur.This move taken by the ICC will serve as a deterrent for Leaders to quit killings of their citizens.
It is the responsibility of all states to apprehend President Omar Al-Bashir the moment he step his foot outside Sudan.Am quite confident that he would receive fair trail at the ICC,because ICC has no interest in the case of Al-Bashir,they are merely keen in bring the perpetrator of crimes to justice.
Al-Bashir is alleged to have coordinated crimes against civilain population in Dafur,which is a very serious crime and should not be taken lightly as the case of other African leaders.Ofcourse any leader who is accused or suspected of committing killings by the ICC should answer to the charges brought against him or her.It does not means that answering to a charge before a lawful means your conviction.The ICC may found Al-Bashir squash at the end of the trail.

Quite frankly, I am fed up with all things African! I am sorry for the past European and American abuses. That was the past! It appears that Africa has no problem in looking for “Western” handouts, yet seems incapable of taking care of it’s own house! Maybe we should all walk away for about a decade and let them get their act together, without any “interference”!!!

It appears to me US pressure fits in here somewhere. Perhaps there is oil in the region.
ICC needs to be careful not to loose credibility by choosing to go after Bashir rather than say Bush/Rumsfeld who one could argue are responsible for the deaths of some 800,000 people, the trashing of a once great nation and displacement of an estimated 3,000,000 people.
John Macassey
New Zealand

As of now President Bashir is viewed to be one of the nastiest of world leaders. Accordingly there probably enough proof to indict him of genocide and the wanton killing of poor helpless people in Sudan.
The ICC must continue to bring such people to justice, whilst they feel secure in their countries it is difficult to arrest leaders in their high position, but all the same an arrest warrant is the first step. This may in some way deter leaders to think twice before they continplate murdering innocent people who have little or no protection in their every day lives. Sure some neighbouring countries do not like the idea of having him tried, perhaps they are looking at their own self interests, and who knows how much bribery and corruption is involved amongst the leaders in and around Sudan.
To avoid being arrested he must limit his travel to only safe areas and possibly confine himself to remain in Sudan. Therefore the ICC is right in indicted him any other barbarous leaders and it is good that such a court exists.
As to the question of him having a fair trial, better he is tried, if found guilty he should suffer the consequences, after all in the trial he is innocent to start with unless he is found guilty and appropriately sentenced.

If the whole world does what China does , ‘settle your own problems’ the rebels in Darfur and the Barshir would talk. Instead we get do gooders (??) Instigating ,threatening or scolding and the aggrieved parties becoming defiant and dig their hills in , the stand off will never end. Like any parents will know ,at a point you should stop interfering in your children affairs. Even if he has to suffer.

Neither the International court nor the UN is ever neutral. If they were,they would and , have arrested Bush for defying the UN going to war with . Iraq
Further the international Court decide to act ,if at all, only after the damage is done beyond redress. If they have an aorta of concern they would have stopped the Genocide of the Tamils in Srilanka long ago.All most all the organisations and countries have their own hidden agenda to support the Rich, Famous and the Notorious. .
To expect justice, from an International organisation, the VETO power should be abolished forth with.

Is the ICC neutral? Yes. But the Justice System is so SLOW. Like the Milosevic trial that went on for years. He died before any verdict was reached.

Do we really need a trial to find the perpetrator of the Darfor genocide guilty of crime? And now he has booted out Aid Agencies. Does he care about the citizens of that country? Of course not. Another raving, cruel madman, and as guilty as hell.

By the way, I agree with CJ McAULEY. Let Africa get it’s act together.

A day begins a story. A step begins a journey. A person does not clean his anus before going to the toilet. ICC was set up for justice in matters brought before it according to evidence before it. Everything has merits and demerit but optmists set their minds on the merits. At the end of Bashir’s trial we can judge the ICC. The prosecutor ought to have obtained this warrant before now since the rebel leaders he sponsored, appointed and employed into his cabinet and government were indicted. Any person can arrest Bashir and hand him over to the prosecutor L M Ocampo or better he should submit himself for trail if he sees himself as innocent. He will be defended and everbody will be free to follow up his trial and comment. All crminal cannot be brought vto justice, it is only those brought before a court of law that are tried.
AGU EKPE

Of course it is not neutral. How would you explain the selectivity in who they go after. Why is Israel exempted doing all it did (and done in the past) in destroying Gaza booming homes, schools, hospitals and even mosques. They have even used internationally forbidden material like cluster and phosphorous bombs? Aren’t these outrageous crimes against humanity? Why is it that countries like the US who are so much behind what this court rules yet they are not a singnitury to it so that they do not get subjected to its rules. What kind of leadership is this? Regardless whether AlBashier is innocent or not, the court credibility is severely undermined if they are unable to apply their rule equal. After all who appointed them as the world justice department!!!

– will this contribute to and hinder attempts to bring peace to Darfur? Hinder attempts to bring peace to Darfur for a while longer…But, in the long-run Peace can reached Darfur….

– can there be peace and justice in Sudan, or does the UN need to choose between the two? I think that the UN needs to choose……

– who exactly is going to arrest President Bashir? Anyone!

– if he were arrested would he get a fair trial? Yes….

– and why President Bashir and not other African leaders accused of involvement in civilian deaths? Maybe, there is more investigations that will be open now, and other leaders in Africa will be implicated in the deaths of Civilians…

As Desmond Tutu pointed out, the victims of the war crimes of which Bachir is accused are African and are Arabic-speaking. Which makes the position of the AU and Arab League all the more shameful. More concerned about shielding dictators than ordinary people.

White, western victims seemingly always get justice or at least access to it. Frankly, I’m glad that Africans might get some too.

If crimes that killed 1200 people deserve justice, then why not crimes that killed 300,000 people and counting?

Of course, when it comes to outrage in cases like this, everyone is focused exclusively on the criminals (imperialist westerners, terrorist Arabs, etc). No one gives a toss about the victims because they don’t fit into anyone’s political agenda.

What is the point in issuing an arrest warrant against a dictator when it cannot be implemented? He still has the power to cause immense harm to the people of Darfur and the ICC has just waved a red rag at an already uncontrollable animal. For some reason the ICC bowed to pressure from the USA when many others were advising restraint. For practical purposes they are not neutral in this and their action has already led to major harm to the persecuted people of Darfur.

The charges include attacks on civilians, displacement of large numbers of refugees, wanton destruction of facilities and procuring torture. There are many other heads of state who could face similar charges but it seems that only those that the USA regards as enemies are charged. What happened to Myanmar and North Korea in this context?

I believe that International Criminal Court (ICC) is neutral indeed. Coming on the issue of President Bashir called to the ICC, I do not see any reason why he should not go. I do not see any reason why he should hide under tyhe guise of avoiding conflicts and political unrest in Sudan. The law should not be sagregative. After all nobody has proven that President Bashir is guilty. If he is innocent, why worry then, he should go to the ICC and prove himself. African leaders have not been helpful. They are always protecting people they do not need to protect. They have done that numerous times including President Mugabe, and now Bashir. Bashir should go to thwe ICC.
The actions of bashir over the announcement of his call to the ICC clearly shows that he is afraid of something. This is clear that he knows something.

First of all, no body can accuse Bashir till he is proven to be guilty

second: Darfur has oil, that is why the ICC is interested, Gaza doesn’t, and the gencide here is commited by Israel, that is why the ICC is unable to act!

my question: What about USAm France and Israel who give weapons to the militias in Darfur to kill more civilians than what the Gangawied did? what about the UN forces that helps those terrorists to kill civilians?

I think we need to see the big picture: Darfur is full of oil, USA is interested, Sudan is not supportive of giving its oil to USA for free, USA attackes by militians, the Plan B is the ICC…

the same senario of Iraq!
and by the way, Saddam Husein was made in USA, all of his weapons were given to him by USA and France!

Bashir al omar must be the starting point coz after all,all bashirs cant be caught in one day all over the world..we even all know that the police didnt catch all the thugs all over the world yesterday.

UN & ICC are never neutral. The ICC treaty isn’t even ratified by Sudan. How ironical that the ICC didn’t order the arrest of George Bush either. If ICC’s ordering an arrest of a head of state whose country didn’t sign the ICC treaty, then ICC ought to show it’s neutrality by doing the same for Bush. He should be tried for invading Iraq, there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction at all. Clear violations of UN charter articles 39-51. Lots of violations happening around the world.
Bottomline is: No invested interest, no action. Similar to NATO – no action, talk only.

Will this contribute to and hinder attempts to bring peace to Darfur?
-It’ll probably only provide temporary relief but with African history of ethnic conflict and power struggles, I doubt it will bring permanent peace.

Can there be peace and justice in Sudan, or does the UN need to choose between the two? – Peace first, so long as the people are tired of war and want to rebuild the land. UN probably needs to really invest in helping the rebuilding.
Maybe Kofi Annan could overlook the matter. Need someone all can trust and backed by influential countries.

Who exactly is going to arrest President Bashir?
No one. Maybe he’ll be assassinated and when that happens, more chaos.

If he were arrested would he get a fair trial?
-Most people have indicted him as guilty prior to any trial.

Why President Bashir and not other African leaders accused of involvement in civilian deaths?
-Because Darfur’s crisis has been going on far too long and it’s seriously undermining UN’s effectiveness. UN can’t punish Israel and USA anyway.

If the we are questioning the neutrality how can we believe the accusations being made. Once ICC goes after the other leaders who have killed thousands like Olmert and others then it can be considered credible enough. No double standers should be be allowed.

If Bashir gets away with it, we can all kiss good-by the idea of an effective international justice system for the near future.

At some point in human history, humanity must come to grips with the oh-so-common tactic of one group of people having carte blanche to terrorize, murder, and send packing the people occupying any given piece of the earth in order to get at the resources of that piece of earth for their group’s sole benefit and at the expense of the inhabitants.

We all know that according to expectational standard, international entity like the ICC suppose to be neutral. But in terms of effectuation, neutrally is something we shouldn’t even expect all the time. There is neutrality in the ICC but only among western powers, especially those super powers, not among African leaders and so on. We are aware of this, so asking this question makes neutrality in the ICC and the UN as a whole seems quite rare or not noticeable.

for me ICC and UN is a joke.. the only thing they do is taking action against countries who really doesn’t really pose any threat to the security of the world.. countries like the US, UK, Israel and some EU countries who really do, well nothing happens to them. Just because these countries are rich they decide what we others can do or not. There is so much unjust in this world! and these countries really call them selves free and faire, who’ll spread democracy and justice around the world… SHAM ON YOU!! who misuse the name of democracy and takes advantage of others!!

hello again
To Fahad – Saudi Arabia. I know that it is difficult to accept that president Bashir should be charged with crimes against humanity ( in my opinion correctly) when the sixty years of crimes by the zionist squatters against the Palestinians are a subject for boasting by new age fascists like Gisin. (‘ we shall hit them with impunity’). A hundred years ago the concept of international justice was unthinkable now it is firmly anchored in the human spirit and the day will come when nasty people like Olmert, Bush, Blair etc will have nowhere to hide.Justice is not god given it has to be worked and fought for.
Jim

Those who follow the global situation, without doubt, without any regard to the duplication of the view directions Double standards where organizations have become mean of major powers, however, Atiposelp
The examples are many not-too-distant future the actions taken by Israel in Lebanon and Gaza – the war on civilians- and the use of forbidden weapons where is the move of the International Criminal Court, where such crimes Ocampo
I’m with a just solution in the Sudan against the killing of civilians any where in the world, where organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other …
Time for review at the United Nations and other organisations make it more balanced and more legitimacy .the credibility of the West has lost its credibility as a power of protect the rights and freedoms .

I think the ICC has done a bad job of explain itself to people who are not from the legal/NGO background that make up the intelligentsia surrounding all international organizations. I was also outraged by Owen Bennet-Jones apologetic story on Outlook. Somehow justifying Bashir’s atrocities as culturally misunderstood in the West.

So i just want to point out that the ICC isn’t trying to apply some type of relativism. Look to the legal documents that make up the international regime of Human Rights law and you will get a new viewpoint of what is going on here. Start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and others.

The real short coming of the ICC is that they do not act swiftly enough or with a broad enough scope and as such they look like they are applying the rule of law selectively. Personally, I think Robert Mugabe should be next.

No ruler can make war on his own Population. What Bashir is doing in Sudan is completely different then even what is going on in the Israel conflict. Israel may not do all it can to protect civilians but Bashir specifically TARGETS civilians!

Let’s be clear: The U.S. removed Saddam Hussein from power. Had the ICC been able to get him and try him as they are trying to do with Bashir, nobody would be calling for George Bush’s head today. Had Hamas been willing and able to stop the rocket attacks against Israel, there would have been no Israeli attack on Gaza.

Passionately defending criminal regimes by making charges of hypocrisy against the U.N., the U.S., the ICC, Israel, Europe and any others you have a grudge against is surely a hypocritical stance. Believe me, hypocrisy is everywhere in all cultures on earth. Self-righteously proclaiming your own culture to be free of it while accusing others of it is immoral and hypocritical.

A decent, just international system of laws is what is needed. It won’t be perfect because human beings are not perfect, but it is a worthy goal.

Yeah, the ICC is neutral because if it is not, the court would have ordered Bashir arrest immediately after formation in 2002 for killings in South Sudan, Blue Nile and Nuba Mt. Bashir is not guilty yet until he went to the court and defense himself against the accusations filed against him by the persecutor.

Hello again
And hello Viola. In my opinion if Iraq had not been sitting on a pot of oil Saddam Hussein would still be in power. I think that the idea that the USA has been doing the job of the ICC is politically unsound and not borne out by historical facts. Another recent example is Afganistan. Kasai ( president of Afganistan) was the USA’s chief negotiator with the Taliban for an oil pipeline from the Caspian sea that should pass through Afganistan. The Taliban refused and when the twin towers were destroyed the USA saw it’s chance to rid the world of another tyranic regime and perchance get that pipeline going. Incidentely the USA accused Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for the attack on the twin towers. Shortly after the attack Bin Laden, in one of his harangues against the west said that although he agreed fully with the enterprise neither he nor his organisation were involved. View the web of lies spun by the USA to achieve their goals I feel inclined to believe him.
Jim

Hello again
To Jaleel. Olmert is not a criminal because he is a Jew but because he is a zionist who ordered the Gaza massacre. Its important to remember the difference because when justice is done Jews and arabs must heal their wounds and learn to live together in peace.
By the same token Al-Bashir is not charged because he is a Muslim but because he massacred people. I’m sure that Olmert will also be charged.
Jim

I am from Sudan and I am going to repeat that the ICC has made a great deal and it will rescue all Sudanese from North, South, East, West, and Central from the hand of radical muslims headed by National Islamic Front (NIF) if they arrested EL Bashir.
When the Liberian President Mr. Charles Taylor was arrested, no one supported him but I am surprised to see most African Nations supporting a terrorist man, Omar El Bashir.

Let’s be clear: The U.S. removed Saddam Hussein from power. Had the ICC been able to get him and try him as they are trying to do with Bashir, nobody would be calling for George Bush’s head today. Had Hamas been willing and able to stop the rocket attacks against Israel, there would have been no Israeli attack on Gaza.
>>>

To justify a crime by a crime is not logical.. If people kill criminals by them selves and not wait for the police to do its job, then the whole world will be a gang!

No matter what the reason was, USA committed a crime in Iraq and Afganistan. and Israel committed a war crime in Gaza by using mass distruction and chemical weapons, and in Lebanon by using depleted and active uranium.

Using your logic we can say: If France and USA haven’t armed militiants in Darfur, no civilians would have been killed there!

Sudan was referred to the International Criminal Court by the United Nations Security Council. That is why Sudan is being looked at and not Bush. By the way, the USA abstained in that vote. So your “logic” that the USA is using the I.C.C. as a weapon against Sudan is proven wrong. The fact that people want to use the ICC as a weapon against America or Israel and not against Putin or Castro prove the ICC is not neutral.